Rushdie’s chilling reminder to protect free speech

For a time, when novelist Salman Rushdie lived under a death sentence, it was not. The pen of a solitary novelist came under dire threat by the sword of radical Islam, as grippingly recounted in Rushdie’s new memoir, Joseph Anton (Random House, 2012).

The threat was a fatwa, a death sentence, declared by the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 after publication of Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses.

The story of the novel includes a Prophet Muhammad-like character who is never called Muhammad but into whose prophecies “satanic verses” insinuate themselves. The novel critiques aspects of Islam but falls far short of the all-out attack that many Muslims, not having read it, supposed it to be.

“I wish I’d written a more critical book,” Rushdie told an interviewer after the uproar had begun. For in essence this novel, as he says, is “about angelic and satanic metamorphoses,” not an attempt to demonize Islam.

The turmoil and terror endured by Rushdie, his family, others close to him, and many of those involved in publishing his books is thoroughly recounted – the hiding, the British police protection, the assumed name of Joseph Anton (from Joseph Conrad and Anton Chekhov), the moving from place to place in fear of blown cover.

A Japanese translator was slain, an Italian translator attacked, a Norwegian publisher nearly fatally wounded. Bookstores were firebombed. The Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed after expressing support for Rushdie; Mahfouz then changed his mind. Other Muslims rallied to Rushdie’s defense and some paid dearly: A Belgian mullah and his deputy were killed for supporting free expression.

A gravely disheartening aspect of the memoir is its chronicling of how the supposedly free-speech-loving West and writers from other regions proved divided in their response to the threat against Rushdie.

Publishers backed out of paperback publication and other book deals. Speaking invitations were withdrawn. Airlines refused to fly Rushdie. The British press frequently attacked him as a crybaby who was costing the state millions and who had gotten what he deserved for insulting Islam. Western politicians were divided, some wanting “to appease their Muslim constituents.” Liberals contended with liberals, conservatives with conservatives over whether Rushdie deserved “the blame.”

There was a lot of “shifting the blame from the men of violence to the target of their attack,” Rushdie writes.

Worse, writers and artists who should know better, including the spy novelist John Le Carré, said Rushdie should not have expected to write such a novel “with impunity.” The Archbishop of Canterbury declared, “We must be more tolerant of Muslim anger.” Even more revolting was pop-singer-turned-Muslim Cat Stevens’ insistence that Rushdie, who was born a Muslim, should indeed be killed.

All this, mind you, over a collection of sentences, a work of art, a novel. The memoir makes the case that murderous anger, not art, is what shouldn’t be tolerated, and that much of the “respect” for Islam is actually fear. Although Rushdie acknowledges scattered support for him within Islam, he is very clear in saying that “Islam itself, Actually Existing Islam, could not be exonerated from the crimes done in its name.”

“Islam moved a long way from its origins while claiming to be returning to its roots,” Rushdie says. “A new word had been created to help the blind remain blind: Islamophobia. To criticize the militant stridency of this religion in its contemporary incarnation was to be a bigot,” when in fact “[i]t was Islam that had changed … that had become phobic of a very wide range of ideas.”

Though Britain provided armed protection for Rushdie, it was with extremely ill grace. The British appeared to be afraid to stand up to Iran. Margaret Thatcher was of little help, despite her iron-willed reputation. Jimmy Carter criticized Rushdie. Tony Blair likewise until much later.

It was on one of the novelist’s trips to the United States that the tide of Western political opinion began to turn, though not without setbacks.

“America had made it impossible for Britain to walk away from his defense,” Rushdie writes after relating a series of meetings with American senators and a speech at the Freedom Forum, parent foundation of the First Amendment Center. I attended that speech in Arlington, Va. For security reasons Mike Wallace of CBS News was the advertised lecturer. Rushdie had to be sneaked up in a freight elevator. When he was introduced, the stunned audience of 300 gasped, rose and applauded. It was a proud moment for the foundation and its commitment to freedom of expression.

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan and First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams made efforts on Rushdie’s behalf. The Washington Post and New York Times (sort of) came on board. So did Bill Clinton, who told Rushdie, “First Amendment-style rights should grow all around the world,” though he later seemed to wobble.

The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice.

Ken Paulson is president of the First Amendment Center and dean of the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University. He is also the former editor-in-chief of USA Today.

Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute, also is senior vice president of the First Amendment Center, a center of the institute. He is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.

John Seigenthaler founded the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.

About The First Amendment Center

We support the First Amendment and build understanding of its core freedoms through education, information and entertainment.

The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, and the rights to assemble and to petition the government.

Founded by John Seigenthaler, the First Amendment Center is an operating program of the Freedom Forum and is associated with the Newseum and the Diversity Institute. The center has offices in the John Seigenthaler Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

The center’s website, www.firstamendmentcenter.org, is one of the most authoritative sources of news, information and commentary in the nation on First Amendment issues. It features daily updates on news about First Amendment-related developments, as well as detailed reports about U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment, and commentary, analysis and special reports on free expression, press freedom and religious-liberty issues. Support the work of the First Amendment Center.

1 For All

1 for All is a national nonpartisan program designed to build understanding and support for First Amendment freedoms. 1 for All provides teaching materials to the nation’s schools, supports educational events on America’s campuses and reminds the public that the First Amendment serves everyone, regardless of faith, race, gender or political leanings. It is truly one amendment for all. Visit 1 for All at http://1forall.us/

Help tomorrow’s citizens find their voice: Teach the First Amendment

The most basic liberties guaranteed to Americans – embodied in the 45 words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – assure Americans a government that is responsible to its citizens and responsive to their wishes.

These 45 words are as alive and important today as they were more than 200 years ago. These liberties are neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic nor Republican – they are the basis for our representative democratic form of government.

We know from studies beginning in 1997 by the nonpartisan First Amendment Center, and from studies commissioned by the Knight Foundation and others, that few adult Americans or high school students can name the individual five freedoms that make up the First Amendment.

The lesson plans – drawn from materials prepared by the Newseum and the First Amendment Center – will draw young people into an exploration of how their freedoms began and how they operate in today’s world. Students will discuss just how far individual rights extend, examining rights in the school environment and public places. The lessons may be used in history and government, civics, language arts and journalism, art and debate classes. They may be used in sections or in their entirety. Many of these lesson plans indicate an overall goal, offer suggestions on how to teach the lesson and list additional resources and enrichment activities.

First Amendment Moot Court Competition

This site no longer is being updated … And the competition itself is moving to Washington, D.C., where the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center is co-sponsoring the “Seigenthaler-Sutherland Cup National First Amendment Moot Court Competition,” March 18-19, in partnership with the Columbus School of Law, of the Catholic University of America.

During the two-day competition in February, each team will participate in a minimum of four rounds, arguing a hypothetical based on a current First Amendment controversy before panels of accomplished jurists, legal scholars and attorneys.

FIRST AMENDMENT CENTER ARCHIVES

State of the First Amendment survey reports

The State of the First Amendment surveys, commissioned since 1997 by the First Amendment Center and Newseum, are a regular check on how Americans view their first freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion and petition.

The periodic surveys examine public attitudes toward freedom of speech, press, religion and the rights of assembly and petition; and sample public opinion on contemporary issues involving those freedoms.
See the reports.